Academic literature on the topic 'Evans-Pritchard, Edward Evan'

<p class="Bodytext50"><span lang="EN-GB">Sir Edward Evan Evans-Pritchard is a famous British anthropologist, especially known for his research on African cultures. He earned the British knighthood in 1971. His interest is directed at the study of social anthropology and the kinship system of various African tribes, especially Zande and Nuer in Southern Sudan. His two books on these two tribes, Witchraftt, Oracles, Old Magic Among the Azande (1973) and the Nuer (1940) made his argument even more popular and earned an academic award in his field. Pritchard asserted that to draw better explanation on religion, scholars should work more on research outside libraries and theological text and report. A religion should be explained in a way that is developed by its believers, not from orie</span><span lang="IN">n</span><span lang="EN-GB">ts and theologians teachings.</span></p><p class="Bodytext50"> </p><p class="Bodytext50">Sir Edward Evan Evans-Pritchard adalah seorang antropolog Inggris yang terkenal, yang terkenal dengan penelitiannya tentang budaya Afrika. Dia mendapatkan gelar ksatria Inggris pada tahun 1971. Minatnya diarahkan pada studi antropologi sosial dan sistem kekerabatan dari berbagai suku Afrika, terutama Zande dan Nuer di Sudan Selatan. Dua bukunya tentang dua suku ini, Witchraftt, Oracles, Old Magic Diantara theAzande (1973) dan Nuer (1940) membuat argumennya semakin populer dan mendapat penghargaan akademis di bidangnya. Pritchard menegaskan bahwa untuk menarik penjelasan lebih baik tentang agama, para ilmuwan harus lebih banyak mengerjakan penelitian di luar perpustakaan dan teks teologis dan laporannya. Sebuah agama harus dijelaskan dengan cara yang dikembangkan oleh orang-orang percaya, bukan dari orientasi dan ajaran teolog.</p>

O presente artigo, resultante da Aula Magna ministrada pela autora aos alunos do Curso de Graduação em Dança da FURB, no dia 13 de abril de 2018, tem por objetivo apresentar, cronologicamente, as principais contribuições dos primeiros antropólogos à disciplina (ou subdisciplina) Antropologia da Dança. O texto, que poderia também se chamar “A dança na Antropologia antes da Antropologia da Dança” se divide em cinco partes: 1. Evolucionismo Cultural – Lewis Morgan, Edward Tylor e James Frazer; 2. A fórmula evolucionista [derivada da escola alemã Kulturkreis] de Curt Sachs; 3. Escola Estrutural-Funcionalista Britânica – Radcliffe-Brown e Evans-Pritchard; 4. Relativismo Cultural e Particularismo Histórico – a dança como cultura em Franz Boas; 5. A Ciência da Coreologia de Gertrude Kurath – nasce a Etnologia da Dança, hoje Antropologia da Dança (ou Etnocoreologia).

The ethnographic record of Africa, on which anthropologists and historicans rely, is drawn from accounts of widely varying quality written by observers of varying ability. It is frequently distorted, and while we often suspect distortion in specific accounts, we are not always able to pinpoint how that distortion occurred or on what sources it was based. For this reason any use of the ethnographic record must include some form of source criticism if the modern researcher is to have any hope of assessing the quality of the ethnography, or even of discovering just what the record records.“We knew that truth is to be had,” wrote Collingwood, “not by swallowing what our authorities tell us, but by criticizing it,” and modern anthropologists apply this principle in their theoretical reassessments of the classic ethnographies of their predecessors. Many reinterpretations of the works of such anthropologists as Sir Edward Evans-Pritchard have drawn on other sources in the ethnographic record to make their criticisms. But in general anthropologists have found it easier to confine themselves to examining intellectual influences on scholarly works by tracing the genealogy of academic theories, than to investigate what shaped the thoughts and observations of non-academics. The works of soldiers and administrators, for instance, have not always been analyzed as rigorously as the works they are used to criticize. An essential element of source criticism is therefore often missing.

The paper represents a short historical overview of key anthropological figures in Anglo-American and French anthropology of photography such are Boas, Malinowski, Evans-Pritchard, Mead and Bateson, Levi-Strauss and (John) Collier till the current visual anthropologists as Banks, Pink, Ruby, Pinney, and Edwards, among many. Furthermore, the major theoretical ideas such are: objectivity and subjectivity of photography, its material, and intangible aspects, its representative potential, ethical issues and reflexive approach are discussed. At the end, several anthropological projects which include photography are mentioned in order to suggest possible research pathways. I will mention few. Pink asserts the importance of ethnographic hypermedia which includes written text, images, video, photographs and sound in order to create interactive scholarly publications. During his ethnographic research of cultural aspect of wine producing in Burgundy, Coover’s work resulted in electronic ethnography and internet photo study of harvest in order to establish a better connection between the viewer-reader and his work. At the beginning unintentionally, Loescher collaborated with children during her visual research of contemporary urban childhood in Manchester by giving them her still camera. As a result, she was able to better understand their worldviews and their lifestyle. Another collaborative work was between Pink and documentary photographer, da Silva, who made a visual documentary project among two fishing communities in England and Portugal. Finally, the paper mentions Edwards’ research on archival research of museum photography which stresses the role of photography in creating and manipulating with the past.

Setiap orang membutuhkan agama sebagai pegangan dalam hidupnya. Kehidupan beragama bagi sebagian orang merupakan ranah pribadi yang tidak dapat diganggu gugat oleh orang lain. Melalui penelitian Edward Evan Evans-Pritchard yang ditulis oleh Daniel L. Pals, kita dapat melihat bahwa ternyata agama juga merupakan wilayah publik. Agama dapat menjadi sarana untuk setiap orang berkumpul dalam komunitasnya. Pertanyaan yang muncul adalah: Bagaimana agama ini berkembang? Apa perannya dalam hidup bermasyakarat? Mengapa agama menjadi pegangan dalam hidup mereka? Apa relevansinya untuk hidup masyarakat sekarang? Penelitian dalam artikel ini menggunakan metode pendekatan kualitatif melalui kajian pustaka yang bersumber dari buku-buku yang ditulis oleh Daniel L. Pals tentang agama-agama asli di Afrika. Melalui penelitian dari beberapa agama asli ini kita dapat belajar untuk menghidupi agama yang berkembang saat ini. Sehingga saat ini yang menjadi perhatian bersama adalah bahwa tujuan agama yang baru untuk mengembangkan simpati dengan menanamkan semangat persaudaraan universal. Hal yang baik berasal dari hati yang penuh cinta yang ditanamkan lewat cinta yang terbentuk dari membayangkan (imajinasi) dan untuk memiliki kepekaan untuk merasakan apa yang dirasakan oleh orang lain melalui iman mereka.

ABSTRACT The essay draws on two case studies from the photographic archive of British social anthropologist Edward Evan Evans-Pritchard (1902-73) on a fieldwork expedition to Kenya and South Sudan in 1936. The case studies reveal how connections can be made within an archive to articulate new narratives around often well-known photographs. The case studies explore the relationship between two different practices of looking: that involved in the act of photography, and that of looking at archival photographs as historical sources. Whilst the abundance of visual information in the archive reveals photography's endless potential for recodability, the essay argues that the photographic archive is also characterised by obscurity and limitation, and that the small dramas that are sometimes fleetingly glimpsed in the photographic hinterland will for the most part remain partial, unintelligible, and unarticulable by historians. Although there is a visual abundance in the photographic archive with which we might engage, what is shown to us is not abundantly clear. The essay argues that the important historical connections between the concepts of visibility and knowledge in a discipline such as anthropology often break down when the archive is recalcitrant, revealing its own limits as much as its bounty.

On a longtemps vu l’histoire et l’anthropologie comme deux disciplines très distinctes n’ayant pas grand-chose en partage. Jusqu’au début du XXe siècle, l’histoire fut essentiellement celle des « civilisés », des Européens et donc des colonisateurs. Si les colonisés n’étaient pas complètement absents du tableau, ils étaient, au mieux, des participants mineurs. L’anthropologie, pour sa part, s’est instituée en ayant pour objet la compréhension des populations lointaines, les « petites sociétés », autochtones et colonisées, ces populations vues comme hors du temps et de l’histoire. Cette situation était le produit d’une division traditionnelle (Harkin 2010 : 114) – et coloniale (Naepels 2010 : 878) – du travail entre histoire et anthropologie. Celle-ci se prolongeait dans le choix des méthodes : les historiens travaillaient en archives alors que les anthropologues s’intéressaient aux témoignages oraux et donc, s’adonnaient à l’enquête de terrain. Les deux disciplines divergeaient également quant à la temporalité : « Pour l’histoire, (…) le temps est une sorte de matière première. Les actes s’inscrivent dans le temps, modifient les choses tout autant qu’ils les répètent. (…) Pour l’anthropologue, s’il n’y prend garde, le temps passe en arrière-plan, au profit d’une saisie des phénomènes en synchronie » (Bensa 2010 : 42). Ces distinctions ne sont plus aujourd’hui essentielles, en particulier pour « l’anthropologie historique », champ de recherche dont se revendiquent tant les historiens que les anthropologues, mais il n’en fut pas de tout temps ainsi. Après s’être d’abord intéressés à l’histoire des civilisations dans une perspective évolutionniste et spéculative, au tournant du siècle dernier, les pères de l’anthropologie, tant en France (Émile Durkheim, Marcel Mauss), aux États-Unis (Franz Boas), qu’en Angleterre (Bronislaw Malinowski, Alfred Radcliffe-Brown), prendront fermement leur distance avec cette histoire. Les questions de méthode, comme le développement de l’observation participante, et l’essor de concepts qui devinrent centraux à la discipline tels que « culture » et « fonction » furent déterminants pour sortir de l’idéologie évolutionniste en privilégiant la synchronie plutôt que la diachronie et les généalogies. On se détourna alors des faits uniques pour se concentrer sur ceux qui se répètent (Bensa 2010 : 43). On s’intéressa moins à l’accidentel, à l’individuel pour s’attacher au régulier, au social et au culturel. Sans être nécessairement antihistoriques, ces précepteurs furent largement ahistoriques (Evans-Pritchard 1962 : 172), une exception ayant été Franz Boas – et certains de ses étudiants, tels Robert Lowie ou Melville J. Herskovits – avec son intérêt pour les contacts culturels et les particularismes historiques. Du côté de l’histoire, on priorisait la politique, l’événement et les grands hommes, ce qui donnait lieu à des récits plutôt factuels et athéoriques (Krech 1991 : 349) basés sur les événements « vrais » et uniques qui se démarquaient de la vie « ordinaire ». Les premiers essais pour réformer l’histoire eurent lieu en France, du côté des historiens qui seront associés aux « Annales », un nom qui réfère à la fois à une revue scientifique fondée en 1929 par Marc Bloch et Lucien Febvre et à une École d’historiens français qui renouvela la façon de penser et d’écrire l’histoire, en particulier après la Seconde Guerre mondiale (Krech 1991; Schöttler 2010). L’anthropologie et la sociologie naissantes suscitèrent alors l’intérêt chez ce groupe d’historiens à cause de la variété de leurs domaines d’enquête, mais également par leur capacité à enrichir une histoire qui n’est plus conçue comme un tableau ou un simple inventaire. Les fondateurs de la nouvelle École française des Annales décrivent leur approche comme une « histoire totale », expression qui renvoie à l’idée de totalité développée par les durkheimiens, mais également à l’idée de synthèse du philosophe et historien Henry Berr (Schöttler 2010: 34-37). L’histoire fut dès lors envisagée comme une science sociale à part entière, s’intéressant aux tendances sociales qui orientent les singularités. L’ouvrage fondateur de Marc Bloch, Les rois thaumaturges (1983 [1924]), pose les jalons de ce dépassement du conjoncturel. Il utilise notamment la comparaison avec d’autres formes d’expériences humaines décrites notamment dans Le Rameau d’Or (1998 [1924; 1890 pour l’édition originale en anglais]) de James G. Frazer et explore le folklore européen pour dévoiler les arcanes religieux du pouvoir royal en France et en Angleterre (Bensa 2010; Goody 1997). Il s’agit alors de faire l’histoire des « mentalités », notion qui se rapproche de celle de « représentation collective » chère à Durkheim et Mauss (sur ce rapprochement entre les deux notions et la critique qui en a été faite, voir Lloyd 1994). Les travaux de la deuxième génération des historiens des Annales, marqués par la publication de l’ouvrage de Fernand Braudel La Méditerranée et le monde méditerranéen à l’époque de Philippe II en 1949 et de son arrivée en 1956 à la direction de la revue, peuvent encore une fois mieux se comprendre dans l’horizon du dialogue avec l’anthropologie, d’une part, et avec les area studiesqui se développèrent aux États-Unis après la Seconde Guerre mondiale, de l’autre (Braudel 1958). Le projet est de rapporter « la spécificité des acteurs singuliers, des dates et des événements à des considérations plus vastes sur la transformation lente des mœurs et des représentations. Le travail ne consiste pas seulement à capter au projet de l’histoire des rubriques chères à l’anthropologie, mais aussi à caractériser une époque [et une région] par sa façon de percevoir et de penser le monde » (Bensa 2010 : 46). Il s’agit alors de faire l’histoire des structures, des conjonctures et des mentalités (Schöttler 2010 : 38). Les travaux de cette deuxième génération des Annales s’inscrivent dans un vif débat avec l’anthropologie structuraliste de Claude Lévi-Strauss. Si tant Braudel que Lévi-Strauss voulaient considérer les choses de façon globale, Lévi-Strauss situait la globalité dans un temps des sociétés des origines, comme si tout s’était joué au départ et comme si l’histoire n’en serait qu’un développement insignifiant. Pour sa part, Braudel, qui s’intéressait à l’histoire sérielle et à la longue durée, situait plutôt la globalité dans un passé qui sert à comprendre le présent et, jusqu’à un certain point, à prévoir ce qui peut se passer dans le futur. Ce qui constitue le fond de leur opposition est que l’un s’intéresse à l’histoire immobile alors que l’autre s’intéresse à l’histoire de longue durée, soit l’histoire quasi immobile selon laquelle, derrière les apparences de la reproduction à l’identique, se produisent toujours des changements, même très minimes. Dans les deux cas, l’ « événementiel » ou ce qui se passe à la « surface » sont à l’opposé de leur intérêt pour la structure et la profondeur, même si ces dernières ne sont pas saisies de la même façon. Pour Braudel, la structure est pleinement dans l’histoire ; elle est réalité concrète et observable qui se décèle notamment dans les réseaux de relations, de marchandises et de capitaux qui se déploient dans l’espace et qui commandent les autres faits dans la longue durée (Dosse 1986 : 89). Les travaux de Braudel et son concept d’ « économie-monde » inspireront plusieurs anthropologues dont un Marshall Sahlins et un Jonathan Friedman à partir du tournant des années 1980. Pour Lévi-Strauss, la structure profonde, celle qui correspond aux enceintes mentales humaines, « ne s’assimile pas à la structure empirique, mais aux modèles construits à partir de celle-ci » (Dosse 1986 : 85). Elle est donc hors de l’histoire. Comme le rappelait François Hartog (2014 [2004] : 287), Lévi-Strauss a souvent dit « rien ne m’intéresse plus que l’histoire. Et depuis fort longtemps! » (1988 : 168; voir d’ailleurs notamment Lévi-Strauss 1958, 1983), tout en ajoutant « l’histoire mène à tout, mais à condition d’en sortir » (Lévi-Strauss 1962 : 348) ! Parallèlement à l’entreprise déhistoricisante de Lévi-Strauss, d’autres anthropologues insistent au contraire à la même époque sur l’importance de réinsérer les institutions étudiées dans le mouvement du temps. Ainsi, Edward E. Evans-Pritchard, dans sa célèbre conférence Marett de 1950 qui sera publiée en 1962 sous le titre « Anthropology and history », dénonce le fait que les généralisations en anthropologie autour des structures sociales, de la religion, de la parenté soient devenues tellement généralisées qu’elles perdent toute valeur. Il insiste sur la nécessité de faire ressortir le caractère unique de toute formation sociale. C’est pour cette raison qu’il souligne l’importance de l’histoire pour l’anthropologie, non pas comme succession d’événements, mais comme liens entre eux dans un contexte où on s’intéresse aux mouvements de masse et aux grands changements sociaux. En invitant notamment les anthropologues à faire un usage critique des sources documentaires et à une prise en considération des traditions orales pour comprendre le passé et donc la nature des institutions étudiées, Evans-Pritchard (1962 : 189) en appelle à une combinaison des points de vue historique et fonctionnaliste. Il faut s’intéresser à l’histoire pour éclairer le présent et comment les institutions en sont venues à être ce qu’elles sont. Les deux disciplines auraient donc été pour lui indissociables (Evans-Pritchard 1962 : 191). Au milieu du XXe siècle, d’autres anthropologues s’intéressaient aux changements sociaux et à une conception dynamique des situations sociales étudiées, ce qui entraîna un intérêt pour l’histoire, tels que ceux de l’École de Manchester, Max Gluckman (1940) en tête. En France, inspiré notamment par ce dernier, Georges Balandier (1951) insista sur la nécessité de penser dans une perspective historique les situations sociales rencontrées par les anthropologues, ce qui inaugura l’étude des situations coloniales puis postcoloniales, mais aussi de l’urbanisation et du développement. Cette importance accordée à l’histoire se retrouva chez les anthropologues africanistes de la génération suivante tels que Jean Bazin, Michel Izard et Emmanuel Terray (Naepels 2010 : 876). Le dialogue entre anthropologie et histoire s’est développé vers la même époque aux États-Unis. Après le passage de l’Indian Claims Commission Act en 1946, qui établit une commission chargée d’examiner les revendications à l’encontre de l’État américain en vue de compensations financières pour des territoires perdus par les nations autochtones à la suite de la violation de traités fédéraux, on assista au développement d’un nouveau champ de recherche, l’ethnohistoire, qui se dota d’une revue en 1954, Ethnohistory. Ce nouveau champ fut surtout investi par des anthropologues qui se familiarisèrent avec les techniques de l’historiographie. La recherche, du moins à ses débuts, avait une orientation empirique et pragmatique puisque les chercheurs étaient amenés à témoigner au tribunal pour ou contre les revendications autochtones (Harkin 2010). Les ethnohistoriens apprirent d’ailleurs à ce moment à travailler pour et avec les autochtones. Les recherches visaient une compréhension plus juste et plus holiste de l’histoire des peuples autochtones et des changements dont ils firent l’expérience. Elles ne manquèrent cependant pas de provoquer un certain scepticisme parmi les anthropologues « de terrain » pour qui rien ne valait la réalité du contact et les sources orales et pour qui les archives, parce qu’étant celles du colonisateur, étaient truffées de mensonges et d’incompréhensions (Trigger 1982 : 5). Ce scepticisme s’estompa à mesure que l’on prit conscience de l’importance d’une compréhension du contexte historique et de l’histoire coloniale plus générale pour pouvoir faire sens des données ethnologiques et archéologiques. L’ethnohistoire a particulièrement fleuri en Amérique du Nord, mais très peu en Europe (Harkin 2010; Trigger 1982). On retrouve une tradition importante d’ethnohistoriens au Québec, qu’on pense aux Bruce Trigger, Toby Morantz, Rémi Savard, François Trudel, Sylvie Vincent. L’idée est de combiner des données d’archives et des données archéologiques avec l’abondante ethnographie. Il s’agit également de prendre au sérieux l’histoire ou la tradition orale et de confronter les analyses historiques à l’interprétation qu’ont les acteurs de l’histoire coloniale et de son impact sur leurs vies. La perspective se fit de plus en plus émique au fil du temps, une attention de plus en plus grande étant portée aux sujets. Le champ de recherche attira graduellement plus d’historiens. La fin des années 1960 fut le moment de la grande rencontre entre l’anthropologie et l’histoire avec la naissance, en France, de l’« anthropologie historique » ou « nouvelle histoire » et, aux États-Unis, de la « New Cutural History ». L’attention passa des structures et des processus aux cultures et aux expériences de vie des gens ordinaires. La troisième génération des Annales fut au cœur de ce rapprochement : tout en prenant ses distances avec la « religion structuraliste » (Burguière 1999), la fascination pour l’anthropologie était toujours présente, produisant un déplacement d’une histoire économique et démographique vers une histoire culturelle et ethnographique. Burguière (1999) décrivait cette histoire comme celle des comportements et des habitudes, marquant un retour au concept de « mentalité » de Bloch. Les inspirations pour élargir le champ des problèmes posés furent multiples, en particulier dans les champs de l’anthropologie de l’imaginaire et de l’idéologique, de la parenté et des mythes (pensons aux travaux de Louis Dumont et de Maurice Godelier, de Claude Lévi-Strauss et de Françoise Héritier). Quant à la méthode, la description dense mise en avant par Clifford Geertz (1973), la microhistoire dans les traces de Carlo Ginzburg (1983) et l’histoire comparée des cultures sous l’influence de Jack Goody (1979 [1977]) permirent un retour de l’événement et du sujet, une attention aux détails qui rejoignit celle qu’y accordait l’ethnographie, une conception plus dynamique des rapports sociaux et une réinterrogation des généralisations sur le long terme (Bensa 2010 : 49 ; Schmitt 2008). Aux États-Unis, la « New Culturel History » qui s’inscrit dans les mêmes tendances inclut les travaux d’historiens comme Robert Darnon, Natalie Zemon Davis, Dominick La Capra (Iggers 1997; Krech 1991; Harkin 2010). L’association de l’histoire et de l’anthropologie est souvent vue comme ayant été pratiquée de manière exemplaire par Nathan Wachtel, historien au sens plein du terme, mais également formé à l’anthropologie, ayant suivi les séminaires de Claude Lévi-Strauss et de Maurice Godelier (Poloni-Simard et Bernand 2014 : 7). Son ouvrage La Vision des vaincus : les Indiens du Pérou devant la Conquête espagnole 1530-1570 qui parut en 1971 est le résultat d’un va-et-vient entre passé et présent, la combinaison d’un travail en archives avec des matériaux peu exploités jusque-là, comme les archives des juges de l’Inquisition et les archives administratives coloniales, et de l’enquête de terrain ethnographique. Cet ouvrage met particulièrement en valeur la capacité d’agir des Autochtones dans leur rapport avec les institutions et la culture du colonisateur. Pour se faire, il appliqua la méthode régressive mise en avant par Marc Bloch, laquelle consiste à « lire l’histoire à rebours », c’est-à-dire à « aller du mieux au moins bien connu » (Bloch 1931 : XII). Du côté des anthropologues, l’anthropologie historique est un champ de recherche en effervescence depuis les années 1980 (voir Goody 1997 et Naepels 2010 pour une recension des principaux travaux). Ce renouveau prit son essor notamment en réponse aux critiques à propos de l’essentialisme, du culturalisme, du primitivisme et de l’ahistoricisme (voir Fabian 2006 [1983]; Thomas 1989; Douglas 1998) de la discipline anthropologique aux prises avec une « crise de la représentation » (Said 1989) dans un contexte plus large de décolonisation qui l’engagea dans un « tournant réflexif » (Geertz 1973; Clifford et Marcus 1986; Fisher et Marcus 1986). Certains se tournèrent vers l’histoire en quête de nouvelles avenues de recherche pour renouveler la connaissance acquise par l’ethnographie en s’intéressant, d’un point de vue historique, aux dynamiques sociales internes, aux régimes d’historicité et aux formes sociales de la mémoire propres aux groupes auprès desquels ils travaillaient (Naepels 2010 : 877). Les anthropologues océanistes participèrent grandement à ce renouveau en discutant de la nécessité et des possibilités d’une anthropologie historiquement située (Biersack 1991; Barofsky 2000; Merle et Naepels 2003) et par la publication de plusieurs monographies portant en particulier sur la période des premiers contacts entre sociétés autochtones et Européens et les débuts de la période coloniale (entre autres, Dening 1980; Sahlins 1981, 1985; Valeri 1985; Thomas 1990). L’ouvrage maintenant classique de Marshall Sahlins, Islands of History (1985), suscita des débats vigoureux qui marquèrent l’histoire de la discipline anthropologique à propos du relativisme en anthropologie, de l’anthropologie comme acteur historique, de l’autorité ethnographique, de la critique des sources archivistiques, des conflits d’interprétation et du traitement de la capacité d’agir des populations autochtones au moment des premiers contacts avec les Européens et, plus largement, dans l’histoire (pour une synthèse, voir Kuper 2000). Pour ce qui est de la situation coloniale, le 50e anniversaire de la publication du texte fondateur de Balandier de 1951, au début des années 2000, fut l’occasion de rétablir, approfondir et, dans certains cas, renouveler le dialogue non seulement entre anthropologues et historiens, mais également, entre chercheurs français et américains. Les nouvelles études coloniales qui sont en plein essor invitent à une analyse méticuleuse des situations coloniales d’un point de vue local de façon à en révéler les complexités concrètes. On y insiste aussi sur l’importance de questionner les dichotomies strictes et souvent artificielles entre colonisateur et colonisé, Occident et Orient, Nord et Sud. Une attention est aussi portée aux convergences d’un théâtre colonial à un autre, ce qui donne une nouvelle impulsion aux analyses comparatives des colonisations (Sibeud 2004: 94) ainsi qu’au besoin de varier les échelles d’analyse en établissant des distinctions entre les dimensions coloniale et impériale (Bayart et Bertrand 2006; Cooper et Stoler 1997; Singaravélou 2013; Stoler, McGranahn et Perdue 2007) et en insérant les histoires locales dans les processus de globalisation, notamment économique et financière, comme l’ont par exemple pratiqué les anthropologues Jean et John Comaroff (2010) sur leur terrain sud-africain. Ce « jeu d’échelles », représente un défi important puisqu’il force les analystes à constamment franchir les divisions persistantes entre aires culturelles (Sibeud 2004: 95). Ce renouveau a également stimulé une réflexion déjà amorcée sur l’usage des archives coloniales ainsi que sur le contexte de production et de conservation d’une archive (Naepels 2011; Stoler 2009), mais également sur les legs coloniaux dans les mondes actuels (Bayart et Bertrand 2006; De l’Estoile 2008; Stoler 2016)

Introduction Resilience is, as a concept and as a discourse, a cultural resource that has experienced a growing importance over the last two decades, especially in the field of psychology. In September 2013, the most important database for scientific productions in psychology (www.psycinfo.org) contained more than 14,000 references concerning resilience. In French-speaking countries, for example, each new book by Boris Cyrulnik, the famous neuropsychiatrist who imported the notion of resilience into the psychological field, sells like hotcakes, with total sales of several million copies (see Marquis). Generally considered as the individual’s tendency to cope with stress and adversity, resilience is not only a successful but also a much-debated concept. Is every human potentially resilient, as Masten puts it, or should this notion only apply, in a Darwinian perspective, to the strongest of us? Should resilience be understood as a process in which culture and environment play important roles, as Ungar shows, or as an individual ability? Should we make a distinction between resilient and non-resilient? Does resilience automatically imply having been deeply traumatised, as Cyrulnik puts it? The main reason why these debates have taken such an important place in psychology is that using the concept of resilience is likely to take on, except for its scientific use, a normative or an evaluative dimension. To avoid this shortcoming, most recent works on resilience clearly insist upon the fact that being resilient is not a character trait or an indicator of the power of a person's will (Rutter). It is a multidimensional ecological process. However, nowadays resilience has become a common sense notion, a cultural resource mobilised by the layman or by self-help (SH) books. Accordingly, “resilience” will not be considered here as a scientific concept but rather as a common sense category. Drawing on an analysis of the success of such books, this article intends to show why a description of the common sense uses of this cultural resource is of prime importance when it comes to understanding some salient characteristics of liberal-individualistic societies, especially by comparison with traditional societies. In fact the success of the discursive category of resilience tells something about ourselves, as people living in societies where personal autonomy is highly valued. Therefore, the description of these common sense uses will show how the “resilience” category also constitutes a resource to evaluate both oneself and others as well as an tool to measure one’s own will or the others’, which is exactly what most psychologists try to avoid doing in their theorisation of resilience. Confidence and Breach in Everyday Life Risk management is part of human life. Actually, we spend most of our time minimising the risks we are running when engaging with the world. This attitude is neither a rational action nor a conscious one. It is, in fact, quite the reverse. In everyday life, we simply trust the world. As Luhmann says, confidence is a sine qua non condition of our existence. Our everyday life turns into a close-meshed fabric that makes us feel secure as it ensures consistency over time. This security enables us to avoid the issue of the relevance of our expectations or of the success of our acts. The common sense attitude we are describing here refers to what the American pragmatists call the “practice regime”, in which our main concern is to make sure that life goes on. But a breach might arise (in the form of a more or less tragic event, a change in one’s routine, a vague unease, etc.). What used to be obvious (and above all unquestioned) now becomes uncertain. Such a breach may seriously lead us to question our involvement with a world that has suddenly become strange, threatening, or complete nonsense. The Reading of Self-Help Books: Mobilising Resilience as a Cultural Reaction to Breaches It may be interesting to observe what people do, in the moments when disquiet has invaded their existence, in order to overcome misfortune, both at a symbolic and operative level. My hypothesis is that our attitude towards misfortune is in line with a specific cultural context. Like Illouz, I understand culture as the way we make sense of who we are through actions shaped by values, key images and scenarios, ideals, and habits of thought; through the stories we use to frame our own and others’ experience; through the accounts we use to explain our own and others’ failures and successes; through what we feel entitled to; through the moral categories we use to hierarchize our social world. (8) In other words: in order to allow life to come back to normal after a breach, people resort to the resources their own culture makes available to them. Nowadays resilience has become one such cultural resource that we use to construct our attitude towards misfortune. The question put here is not whether people are really resilient or not, but why this category experiences such traction in liberal-individualistic societies. Therefore, I have made a sociological study of a well-know social phenomenon: in particular, the reading of SH books, in which the discursive tropes of trauma and resilience are indeed very present. Sociologists too often refer to SH books as having hypothetical effects, or consequences. However, unlike what one might find in a literature review, I haven’t tried to make the success of these books a sign or a cause of the decline of society or of the individual, or of a more reflexive society with happier citizens. As numerous authors shown (including Barker and Petley), it is extremely difficult to assess the impact of cultural resources (for example cinema, books, and all forms of media) on individuals and a fortiori on groups of human through scientific procedures. Needless to say, these books have a bad reputation in academic circles, and this negative reputation is maintained because we actually know very little about how they are used by their readers. To overcome this shortcoming, I have tried to provide an answer to the apparently naïve question as to how reading SH literature can make sense to people who praise the virtues of these books, and the claim that they “have changed their life”, readily resorting to the tropes of resilience and trauma. To put it another way, I tried to understand how readers could know “how to go about” these books and have the expertise “to perform these texts” (Alexander) so they can bring them a degree of help, relief and satisfaction. With this objective in mind, I have explored an empirical field of about a hundred SH books, conducted 50 in-depth conversations with readers of SH books, and examined around 300 letters to three well-known authors of such texts. So why do people that read SH books containing such specific content have no trouble finding a meaning, as well as a symbolic and operative effectiveness, in them? My hypothesis is that these books make use of what Wittgenstein calls a “language game”. A “language game” is constituted by a set of (common sense) words and concepts that we mobilise when confronted with specific situations. In contemporary societies, people experiencing a breach in the fabric of their life will probably summon up a particular “language game” influenced by a psychological vision of the world to express and explain what has happened, what the consequences of this breach are, and what possibilities there are to get out of this situation. “Resilience” is one of the most prominent notions of this “language game”. It is not only to be found in the SH books, but also in the discourse of the readers of such books. What does this particular “language game” look like? What role does resilience play in it ? Two characteristics can be observed. First, this “language game” seems to give an extremely important signal of "interiority", an entity that pervades SH readers’ discourse. More precisely SH readers experience (and explain) that they are being inhabited by a “true self” that is the guardian of the “truth” about themselves, but is also the source of an unsuspected power of action. In a supposedly democratic anthropology, people making use of this “language game” consider that all human beings have such interiority, and can therefore harness the hidden resources it contains. In such narratives the pursuit of and engagement with this “true self” are endowed with important qualities. In short, these actions are considered to be the solution to most of our problems. The second characteristic, leading from the first, is that when faced with misfortune, be it big or small, the readers of SH books place great value on "working on the self”. Generally speaking, only efficient action in dealing with our problems finds favour in their eyes. To be precise, in such people’s discourses, having been traumatized is endowed with the power of revealing who we really are and what we are really capable of. Furthermore, such people come to believe that having suffered makes you a survivor, from now on entitled to become a reference for other people on their road to their “true self”. Let us look at a letter to a famous French-speaking SH book author: I want to thank you for your book “Being Genuine: Stop Being Nice, Start Being Real”, which allowed me to identify two problems that stop me from being who I really am: my lack of self-esteem and of self-confidence. Your book was a revelation to me. At the age of 39, I have at last understood how the 26 years spent with my parents created an attitude of submission and passivity in myself, which caused my lack of self-esteem and self-confidence. I have now decided to tackle these problems and to begin a therapy, in order to get rid of all these limiting issues. I feel that it will offer me a rebirth. Thank you so much. (my translation) This letter illustrates clearly how the “language game” is mobilised. It is used first to translate (or to put words on) a vague unease that relies on interiority (“who I really am”, “lack of self-esteem”, “in myself”, etc.) and secondly to create possibilities action to deal with the unease that has now been defined (“tackle the problem”, “begin a therapy”, “get rid of”, etc.). To sum it up, there is no doubt that, contrary to the stance often observed in the scientific literature on resilience, in the SH readers’ eyes, resilience is first a personal capacity, and even more precisely a question of will, and only second a process depending on contextual elements. The Discourse around Sorcery in Azande’s Society as a Point of Comparison I would like now to give an indication of the way reading such books and drawing on this “language game” constitute a practical attitude towards everyday risks, and how this is particularly adapted to our liberal-individualistic culture, in which the question of personal autonomy and individual responsibility is of unprecedented importance (Ehrenberg): in such cultural contexts each individual is expected to be the entrepreneur of his own life. To make this point clearer, I will briefly sketch a comparison with another practical attitude that has been well-documented in anthropological work: the “language game” of sorcery, which is practiced in many traditional societies but also in some parts of the western societies (Favret-Saada). The first anthropologist to have gone beyond the issue of the reality of magic was Evans-Pritchard. During the first half of the 20th century, he studied the use of sorcery in a tribe of South Sudan: the Azande. Evans-Pritchard thought that such a phenomenon could only be understood if the social institutions making a form of magical thinking plausible were taken into account. On the basis of his fieldwork, he considered the types of situations in which the Azande resorted to magic. His answer was that magic (which is notably present in accusations of sorcery) only intervenes in difficult times and more precisely when two things coincide. The first is the fact that an event (even a totally explicable one) arises, the second is the fact that it happens to the person in question, at that precise moment. For example the Azande understand that it was lightning that made the tree fall down, but they wondered why lightning struck in that place, at that time, above the head of that person in particular. For them, such phenomenon could not remain unexplained. They understood what caused their misfortune, but they needed to find a reason for it all the same. When faced with adversity, the Azande will always wonder: "who is holding a grudge against me”, and “who has got reasons to cast a spell on me?" The discourse around sorcery is what Winch later called an "attitude towards contingencies", which he defines as the “way of dealing (symbolically) with misfortunes and their disruptive effect on a man’s relations with his fellows, with ways in which life can go on despite such disruptions” (321). In this sense, reading SH books and mobilizing the category of resilience both have a similar function, just as praying does: this practice and the corresponding “language game” also testify of an attitude towards contingencies. As is the case with magical practices, both are socially instituted systems of interpretations that enable the people in question to find some meaning to misfortune and to go on living after it (in this matter, Masten’s consideration of resilience as “ordinary magic” is interesting). Nevertheless, the ways these two attitudes towards contingencies enable people to make sense and to set up possible actions are very different. The two systems of accountability are not alike. The Azande’s attitude is fundamentally projective (the responsibility or blame for a misfortune is shifted to somebody else, most of the time to a sorcerer). On the other hand, the attitude of the readers of SH books is introspective: the question that is socially valued is not “who is holding a grudge against me?”, but “what can I do to get out of it?”. In SH readers’ eyes, this is the very question to be answered in order to be considered as a resilient person. The sorcery system makes it possible to consider that the responsibility for the misfortune and the responsibility for the end of it go to the same entity: the sorcerer. In the SH readers’ attitude towards contingencies, these two responsibilities are uncoupled: while “another” is often held responsible for the misfortune, the person that experienced the misfortune is always considered responsible for getting over it: they are supposed to pick themselves up and improve themselves. Likewise, the projective attitude (which is characteristic of the discussions on sorcery) is highly discredited in the “language game” of resilience used by the SH readers. It is considered as the sign of a fake resilience. This is obvious from the distrust that is present in their discourse towards the character of the "victim", as well as towards the figure of the “complaint”, as the following excerpts from interviews with readers clearly show:Woman, 64 years old: People reading SH books are people who want to feel good, find their place in the world and solve the problems arising from their past. They are people who try to get over victimisation and to responsibilise themselves. Woman, 35 years old: I find it a good thing that more and more people read SH books. But a lot of other people continue to consider themselves as the genuine victims of their parents or of their education, and they need a lot of time to get through it. As for me, I believe that we have what we need in ourselves: we choose what we want, and we have what we want. Man, 40 years old: We need to get out of the vicious circle that makes us consider that “the others” are always responsible for our problems. For example: “Oh if I am unemployed, it is because society does not provide me with a job”. Well, maybe, but the good question is “why don’t you have a job while other people do?” It is useless to accuse society. The question is: “which actions do you take to get a job? (my translation for the three quotes) This “language game”, which so enhances both interiority as the resource of meaning and power, and efficient work on one’s own self, allows us to consider others or the environment as responsible for our own misfortune. Yet, it certainly doesn’t allow us to wait passively for things to improve on their own. In the common sense use of resilience, improvement must be caused in a proactive way by exploring our inner resources. In the end, this “language game” is indeed what people try to put into practice when they read SH books: these books build up their conviction that, whatever the situation they find themselves in (and whoever is responsible for it), they can always do something to it, they can always make use of this event to improve themselves. SH books and the “language game”, which resilience is a part of, enable the readers to consider all their problems as finding a solution in a more efficient practice of their interiority. Conclusion: The Evaluative Dimension of Resilience The “language game” of SH books is not only employed by readers as a means to make problems manageable. It is also experienced as a powerful resource for assessing oneself and others. The main finding of this article is the hiatus that exists between the scientific interpretations of resilience as an analytic (thus not normative) resource and the way this notion is mobilized in the common sense by laypeople in their everyday lives order to evaluate responsibilities. It is exactly as if people could not help asking the question: “if this person is not resilient and can’t cope with adversity, isn’t it, at least partly, their own fault?” The reason of this hiatus is that resilience is used in a cultural context where autonomy has taken an unprecedented importance. The key message of SH books, which is endorsed by most readers, is that happiness, well-being and resilience are a matter of personal choice. Behind the democratic proposition of SH books: “everybody has the ability to manage, everybody might be resilient,” lurks a much more meritocratic attitude: namely, “if you cannot come to terms with a problem, it is because you don’t really want to”. In the world of SH books, people who do not “put on a brave face”, or who do not work at being consistent with themselves, who content themselves with the secondary benefits of a life that does not really suit them, who expect solutions to drop down from heaven, – in a word people who do not show what SH readers consider as a genuinely resilient behaviour – only have themselves to blame. This phrase (“only have themselves to blame”), has negative connotations in French-speaking sociological discourses, but is not attached to such negativity in the mind of SH readers that get the most out of such books. “Blaming oneself as the only one responsible”, not for what happened but for what we do/don’t do to get through it, is exactly what the “language game” mobilising resilience and its emphasis on interiority and efficient activity allow. This is what readers are seeking when reading SH books. Indeed, people seeking a solution to their problems would ask: what is the use of reading books saying there is nothing to do to improve our situation? Thus, when using the “language game” of resilience, the SH book readers willingly accept the consequence that their problems have now been brought out into the open: the consequence being that people should take the responsibility for the fact that their problems persist (due to their own failure to act) or disappear (due to their actions). This theory of the consequence of one’s actions is today criticised by sociologists, notably French-speaking ones. References Alexander, Jeffrey. “Cultural Pragmatics: Social Performance between Ritual and Strategy.” Sociological Theory 22 (2004): 527–573. Barker, Martin, and Julian Petley, eds. Ill Effects: The Media/Violence Debate: London: Routledge, 2001. Cyrulnik, Boris. Parler d’Amour au Bord du Gouffre. Paris: Odile Jacob, 2004. Ehrenberg, Alain. La Société du Malaise. Paris: Odile Jacob, 2010. Evans-Pritchard, Edward E. Sorcellerie, Oracles et Magie chez les Azandé. Paris: Gallimard, 1972. Favret-Saada, Jeanne. Les Mots, la Mort, les Sorts. La Sorcellerie dans le Bocage. Paris: Gallimard, 1977. Hazleden, Rebecca. “Promises of Peace and Passion: Enthusing the Readers of Self-Help.” M/C Journal 12.2 (2009). 1 Aug. 2013 ‹http://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/viewArticle/124>. Illouz, Eva. Saving the Modern Soul: Therapy, Emotions, and the Culture of Self-Help. Berkeley: U of California P, 2008. Luhmann Niklas. La Confiance: Un Mécanisme de Réduction de la Complexité Sociale. Paris: Economica, 2006. Marquis, Nicolas. “Se Remettre en Jeu quand Rien ne va Plus: Une Réflexion Sociologique sur la Catégorie de la Résilience. ” Recherches Sociologiques et Anthropologiques 40.1 (2009): 93–110. Masten Ann S., “Ordinary Magic: Resilience Processes in Development.” American Psychologist 56.3 (2001): 227–238. McGee Micki. Self-Help, Inc.: Makeover Culture in American Life. New York: Oxford UP, 2005. Rutter, Michael. “Resilience Reconsidered: Conceptual Considerations, Empirical Findings, and Policy Implications.” Handbook of Early Childhood Intervention. Eds. Jack P. Shonkoff and Samuel J. Meisels. New York: Cambridge UP, 2000. 651–682. Ungar, Michael. “Resilience across Cultures.” British Journal of Social Work 38.2 (2008): 218–235. Winch, Peter. “Understanding a Primitive Society.” American Philosophical Quarterly 1 (1964): 307–324. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Recherches Philosophiques. Paris: Gallimard, 2005.

Students and consumers of psychological science are routinely taught that the scientific approach used in psychological research facilitates its providing the most accurate information about human behavior. Because this approach to knowledge acquisition is supposed to be based on objective evidence and systematic reasoning rather than the biased interpretation of other approaches, these other approaches are often marginalized as being inferior. Critics of these claims assert that psychological science is subject to biases just as other approaches are and that the philosophy of naturalism not only pervades, but is also hidden and largely unquestioned in mainstream psychology. This study examines this claim, beginning with a dialectical contrast between naturalistic and non-naturalistic cultures to concretize practical features of naturalism and non-naturalism. It then uses those features to frame an in-depth analysis of introductory psychology textbooks where a compendium of the important settled principles and findings of all major sub-areas of the discipline should be found. Results show that naturalistic features are to be found throughout all the sub-areas of psychology and that non-naturalistic features are absent or marginalized in the texts.

The diploma thesis deals with witchcraft and other mystic phenomena in conception of Edward Evan Evans-Pritchard. It is focused especially on the notion of witchcraft in connection with magic, shamanism and oracles. It describes relation of all these phenomena towards religious belief and various attitudes towards them. It defines respective practices and explains differences between them. Last but not least, it introduces usual reactions to them. Via concrete situation it also shows interconnection of all described phenomena and presents them as a coherent and logical system.

The purpose of this thesis is to explore the development of Evans-Pritchard's approach to the anthropological study of religion. This study is both an exegesis and an analysis of the formulation of his theoretical framework. Evans-Pritchard's perspective is complex, due in part to the range of people who had significant influence on his development as a thinker and to his evolving response to them.

Sir Edward Evan Evans-Pritchard (1902-1973) is widely considered the most influential British anthropologist of the twentieth century, known to generations of students for his seminal works on South Sudanese ethnography Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic Among the Azande (OUP 1937) and The Nuer (OUP 1940). In these works, now classics in the anthropological literature, Evans-Pritchard broke new ground on questions of rationality, social accountability, kinship, social and political organization, and religion, as well as influentially moving the discipline in Britain away from the natural sciences and towards history. Yet despite much discussion about his theoretical contributions to anthropology, no study has yet explored his fieldwork in detail in order to get a better understanding of its historical contexts, local circumstances or the social encounters out of which it emerged. This book then is just such an exploration, of Evans-Pritchard the fieldworker through the lens of his fieldwork photography. Through an engagement with his photographic archive, and by thinking with it alongside his written ethnographies and other unpublished evidence, the book offers a new insight into the way in which Evans-Pritchard’s theoretical contributions to the discipline were shaped by his fieldwork and the numerous local people in Africa with whom he collaborated. By writing history through field photographs we move back towards the fieldwork experiences, exploring the vivid traces, lived realities and local presences at the heart of the social encounter that formed the basis of Evans-Pritchard’s anthropology.